the Saudis and the Iranians were both financing radical Imams [Citation Needed]

did you find it hard to parse?

While there are some far right, racist groups that are vocal opponents of Islam's spread in Europe, I note that a majority of Europeans from France to Switzerland to Germany to Denmark are concerned with the growing number of insular, intolerant, Sharia practising communities which live outside of the legal and social frameworks established by our governments.

A growing number of Americans believe that Iran is going to nuke Tel Aviv first chance it gets. Ain't it amazing what a concerted, unopposed campaign of malign slander can do to a population? I find it rather fascinating, although it has obviously troubling implications for the viability of Really Existing Democracy...

Cordoba House is not a mosque?

That's right. It's not a mosque. What wingnut hate-site told you that it was?

Tell me, who is financing this Muslim center of religious teaching

The centre is under no obligation to disclose its funding under American law.

If you want a law stating that all charitable contributions from foreign sources must be declared, then I'm all with you. But until and unless all non-profits have to declare funding sources, singling out a community centre on the sole basis that it is run by Muslims is simple harassment.

And as it happens, I Googled a couple of the names on the Cordoba House website, and turns out that the founder is an imam of the Sufi school. He actually seems like a pretty reasonable guy. Anyway, I did a little more digging to figure out what kind of fish a Sufi is. Turns out that it's exceedingly unlikely that there's Wahhabi or Saudi money in that project, since the Saudis and the Wahhabi are violently opposed [.pdf] to Sufism.

You keep confusing Turkey, North Africa (which is actually five different countries...) and Saudi Arabia.

Cheap shot.

Uh, no. You keep making bold claims about Egypt and backing them up with references to practises in Iran, making even bolder claims about Iran and backing them up with references to practises in Saudi Arabia.

Yes (I want to smother the Church). The American experience in not doing so indicates that failure to smother the political aspirations and social role of the dominant religious groups compromises people's ability to live completely free of their dogma.

I have an idea for you. Why don't you focus on smothering Islam?

The two are not mutually exclusive, and extremist Christianity is a greater force for evil in the part of the world I happen to live in.

Which part of (putting Churches under government control) did you find hard to understand?

The part that explains why. You haven't provided any citations of hate speech in the French Catholic Church... or any Christian Church for that matter.

Tysiac's case against her gynecologist drew national press coverage as well as public censure. After 60 Catholic women's groups in Poland launched street protests and a media campaign against her, Tysiac said her children started being harassed in school.

More generally, the far-right parties League of Polish Families and the PiS are heavily intertwined with the Catholic Church, and the League, at least, sports a youth organisation (All Polish Youth) that apparently finds it perfectly justified to commit violence against civil rights demonstrations.

How long ago would you have said the same thing about Croatia? 1993? I fully expect to be alive in 2030.

Croatia? I would have said that immediately following German reunification. But maybe I'm just visionary.

Ah, of course. Being Mooslim is so much worse than participating in a brutal ethnic cleansing...

But tell me, public opinion is largely against integrating Turkey.

shrug Public opinion used to be against gay marriage and legal abortions too. Public opinion changes, and the integration of North Africa has economic and strategic reality on its side.

So what's the plan? A major propaganda operation to brainwash the dumb European public into thinking that integrating Turkey into the EU is good for them?

The plan is to start by not further propagandising against Turkey. More generally, the plan is to split away support from ugly parties and their panderers by rolling back the neoliberal disaster policies that create insecurity and fear for the future. At the same time, the plan is to deepen commercial, infrastructural and diplomatic links with Turkey. When visiting and doing business with Turkey is as natural and commonplace as visiting and doing business with Greece or Romania, much of the fear and hostility will abate.

What started off with a burning desire to smother the Church has morphed into a benign desire to eliminate its influence from political life.

Where did you get the "burning desire" part from? You proposed an excellent way to combat the infiltration of extremist Islamic organisations operating out of a hostile, anti-democratic dictatorship. I just noted that we have an extremist Christian organisation operating out of a hostile, anti-democratic dictatorship, and suggested that we apply the same instrument to that problem.

(Religion is) a serious threat to the public welfare, as is the case in most of Africa.

Good! So it would appear that you DO understand the underlying reasons why I'm hostile to bringing North Africa (or Turkey) into the EU.

Well, in my mental geography Africa starts at the Sahara and Asia at the Urals. Your mileage may vary. But yes, the countries of North Africa would need to develop a relationship with their religious groups - the dominant as well as the minority ones - that is compatible with modern European civilisation.

You may find the Egyptian constitution fantastic for all I care. The fact of the matter is that Sharia (the site where you did your search refers to "Islamic Law" what in fact is Sharia in Arabic) is THE ultimate source of legislative interpretation and is administered through Islamic courts which are financed by the state.

Actually, the Islamic courts are lower courts with limited jurisdiction, whose decisions can be appealed to real courts, operating under ordinary secular law.

The problem with Egypt is not, as far as I can tell, in its constitutional law. Rather, it is in the fact that the government appears to regard constitutional law in much the same way most Europeans regard traffic regulations.

What was that you said about wanting to smother... (or was it eliminate) religion from the political sphere? Why don't you write a diary about the influence of Islam in the Egyptian political sphere?

You mean beyond the fact that my area of expertise is in economics and natural science, not comparative law? Really, the only reason I'm schooling you here is that you are making such basic mistakes as would embarrass any half-way informed European citizen.

You've claimed that Iran funds extremist Imams in Europe and the US. You have never produced a shred of evidence, or even informed speculation, that supports this.

You've claimed that as long as the Cordoba House community centre does not disclose its funding sources, it is reasonably to suspect that they are being funded by Saudi Arabia and Iran, despite the staggeringly monumental improbability that a Sufi of Sunni parentage would be funded by either of the two, let alone both.

You've claimed that Egypt is a theocracy that places Islam above secular law, despite being shown - repeatedly - that Egypt in fact places civil law above Islamic law (to the extent that Egypt operates according to the rule of law at all, which is somewhat questionable).

You've claimed that Turkey is an Islamic country despite the fact that Turkey is an explicitly, even militantly, secular country.

You've claimed that the Roman Catholic Church is not an HIV/AIDS denialist organisation, and that it does not promote hate speech in Eastern Europe.

And you claim that the Bible calls for genocide.
You claim that the Americans call for fighting the Whore of Babylon when they go to Afghanistan
You claim that the Catholic Church had a political profile in France
You claim that the Canon Law originated with the Old testament
You are ignorant of Wahhabist overseas expansion (you needed a citation)
You claim that Sharia is not an integral component of jurisprudence in North Africa - even though it's inscribed in Egypt's constitution (I'll gladly research the others just as soon as I have some time)
You claim that Ottoman rule was intolerant of Christianity in the 15th Century - and that this intolerance has NO RELEVANCE to modern times (like 85 years ago is ancient history)
You claim that propaganda is behind American people's belief that Iran will nuke Israel as soon as it has the bomb... when all you need to do is listen to Ahmedi Nejad's ranting about the destruction of Israel.
And I can go on.

Not that it doesn't. In fact, pretty much the whole of Exodus is about murdering more or less innocent civilians and stealing their land.

You claim that the Americans call for fighting the Whore of Babylon when they go to Afghanistan

You ever been to FreeRepublic?

You claim that the Catholic Church had a political profile in France

I claimed that the RCC had a political profile in Europe. France has been reasonably successful in suppressing it. But the RCC is a transnational organisation, so if the suppression effort stops it'll just infest France again.

You claim that the Canon Law originated with the Old testament

No, I claimed that the Old Testament contained religious laws that the New Testament acknowledges. Which is true.

I accepted your correction of the relevant theological terminology - a correction that is irrelevant to the substance.

You are ignorant of Wahhabist overseas expansion (you needed a citation)

You lie. I demanded a citation for Iranian overseas expansion. Which you have still not provided.

You claim that Sharia is not an integral component of jurisprudence in North Africa - even though it's inscribed in Egypt's constitution

It isn't an integral part of jurisprudence in Egypt, outside certain limited areas such as family law (where religious jurisprudence is not uncommon even in nominally democratic countries - see, e.g., California's Prop H8).

You claim that Ottoman rule was intolerant of Christianity in the 15th Century - and that this intolerance has NO RELEVANCE to modern times (like 85 years ago is ancient history)

You claimed that the genocides of 85 years ago were Islamic genocides against Christians, when in fact they were nationalist genocides against what was perceived as foreign nationals. You also studiously ignore the fact that core members of the European Union committed genocides orders of magnitude worse at the same time, and are still in flat denial of this fact.

You claim that propaganda is behind American people's belief that Iran will nuke Israel as soon as it has the bomb... when all you need to do is listen to Ahmedi Nejad's ranting about the destruction of Israel.

Actually, Ahmedinejad has never called for the destruction of Israel, as anybody who follows Middle East politics even casually knows perfectly well. Unless, of course, they're relying on the American propaganda press for their information.

In fact, pretty much the whole of Exodus is about murdering more or less innocent civilians and stealing their land.

What? Exodus is what backs your claim that the Bible calls for genocide? The Exodus of the Jews from Egypt is a simple historical recital in the Old Testament... a romanced version, or a legend if you prefer. Who is calling for genocide here?

Plus, given that it's the Old Testament, it has considerably less theological value to Christians than the New Testament.

Well Pharoah & Co did sort of have it coming... I mean they WERE screwing around with God's Chosen People and all ;o)

Jokes aside, you're right: it's pretty radical. But while God was punishing the Egyptians (which God being God can do) He wasn't calling on man to take other man's life. Don't forget that the 6th Commandment is: You shall not murder.

Yes, God being God can do things like the Flood or the fire and brimstone on Sodom. But there are again and again stories among the legends of the Chosen People in which the main point is to go out and smite the uncircumcised. Even with the jawbone of an ass, like Samson, who slew a thousand men with it...

The pharaoh was a tyrant, not an elected leader of all those whose sons were supposedly killed in the last strike; and even if the fathers had been guilty, not the sons themselves; and anyway by that time, the Bible describes God as a psychopath making up an excuse for himself by hardening the pharaoh's soul (free will what was that) who would have relented otherwise already. So you will have a hard time justifying the "& co".

He wasn't calling on man to take other man's life.

Not in that passage. Alas, in the passages on the demise of the Canaanites...

Genocide call #1 and genocide #1:

Numbers 21
Arad destroyed
..."If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy [a] their cities." 3 The LORD listened to Israel's plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns

Genocide #2:

Deuteronomy 2
Defeat of Sihon King of Heshbon
...32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed [c] them--men, women and children. We left no survivors.

Genocide #3:

Deuteronomy 3
Defeat of Og King of Bashan
...There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them--the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. 6 We completely destroyed [a] them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying [b] every city--men, women and children.

Genocide call #2:

Deuteronomy 7
Driving Out the Nations 1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Genocide call #3 -- this time against infidels:

Deuteronomy 13
Worshiping Other Gods
...15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock.

Genocide call #4 -- this one is rather explicit that women, children and even livestock is to be exterminated:

Deuteronomy 20
Going to War
...10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Genocide #4:

Joshua 6

1 Now Jericho was tightly shut up because of the Israelites. No one went out and no one came in.
...21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it--men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

Genocide #5:

Joshua 8
Ai Destroyed
...24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day--all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed [a] all who lived in Ai.

Genocide #6:

Joshua 10
Five Amorite Kings Killed 28 That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho. Southern Cities Conquered 29 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked it. 30 The LORD also gave that city and its king into Israel's hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.

31 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Libnah to Lachish; he took up positions against it and attacked it. 32 The LORD handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah...

34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.

36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it.

38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.

40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.

Genocides #7 and #8:

Joshua 11
Northern Kings Defeated
...11 Everyone in it they put to the sword. They totally destroyed [b] them, not sparing anything that breathed, and he burned up Hazor itself.

... 14 The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed.

...21 At that time Joshua went and destroyed the Anakites from the hill country: from Hebron, Debir and Anab, from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua totally destroyed them and their towns. 22 No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive. 23

...oh, and the psychopath God was making up excuses again:

20 For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Genocides #9, #10, #11:

Judges 1
Israel Fights the Remaining Canaanites
...8 The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on fire.

...17 Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their brothers and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed [c] the city.
... 23 When they sent men to spy out Bethel (formerly called Luz), 24 the spies saw a man coming out of the city and they said to him, "Show us how to get into the city and we will see that you are treated well." 25 So he showed them, and they put the city to the sword but spared the man and his whole family.

Genocide #12 -- this time not at the command but due to a trick of God:

Judges 9
Abimelech
...42 The next day the people of Shechem went out to the fields, and this was reported to Abimelech. 43 So he took his men, divided them into three companies and set an ambush in the fields. When he saw the people coming out of the city, he rose to attack them. 44 Abimelech and the companies with him rushed forward to a position at the entrance to the city gate. Then two companies rushed upon those in the fields and struck them down. 45 All that day Abimelech pressed his attack against the city until he had captured it and killed its people. Then he destroyed the city and scattered salt over it.

46 On hearing this, the citizens in the tower of Shechem went into the stronghold of the temple of El-Berith. 47 When Abimelech heard that they had assembled there, 48 he and all his men went up Mount Zalmon. He took an ax and cut off some branches, which he lifted to his shoulders. He ordered the men with him, "Quick! Do what you have seen me do!" 49 So all the men cut branches and followed Abimelech. They piled them against the stronghold and set it on fire over the people inside. So all the people in the tower of Shechem, about a thousand men and women, also died.

Genocide call #5 -- the most explicit:

1 Samuel 15
The LORD Rejects Saul as King2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

This is then followed by Genocide #13 -- which, well, was not completely complete, the very reason Saul was rejected by God:

7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves [b] and lambs--everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.

10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.

Agag was then slaughtered by Samuel.

Genocide #14:

1 Samuel 27
David Among the Philistines
...8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.) 9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive

Genocide #15 and #16:

1 Chronicles 4
Other Clans of Judah
...41 The men whose names were listed came in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah. They attacked the Hamites in their dwellings and also the Meunites who were there and completely destroyed [h] them, as is evident to this day. Then they settled in their place, because there was pasture for their flocks. 42 And five hundred of these Simeonites, led by Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, invaded the hill country of Seir. 43 They killed the remaining Amalekites who had escaped, and they have lived there to this day.

In conclusion: the OT is a horrific, barbaric, genocide-advocating ancient text. Just like the Koran or the Bhagavad-Ghita.

Indeed. God calls for the destruction of the 7 Canaanite nations (on moral grounds) in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 20, paragraph 7 which states: "but thou shalt utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee". To the Jews, this command is the source of Mitzvot 596.

In other words, you finally admit that the Bible advocates genocide (based on a twisted "moral" of collective guilt that involves even newborn children and livestock). It appears that you have no problem with it, and I guess you are okay with slavery for non-Canaanites, too.

Next, you can deal with the fact that it's not just Canaanite nations under the genocide threat -- e.g. the Old Testament's own Jihad call in Deuteronomy 13. Or point to the New testament passage that invalidates any of this for Christians.

The Bible is a compilation of various texts or "books" of different ages. The dates of many of the texts of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) are difficult to establish. Textual criticism places all of them within the 1st millennium BC, although there is considerable uncertainty as to the century in some cases.

...There are currently four broad approaches to the question the date and method of composition of the Torah. All place it within the 1st millennium BC, with the final text reached by the 5th or 4th century BC, but the dates for its oldest portions vary as much as between the 10th and the 4th centuries BC.

The Deuteronomist (D) is one of the sources of the Torah postulated by the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). Martin Noth argued that there was an underlying unity in language and cultural content of the books from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings (Noth 1943). He presented the persona of "The Deuteronomist" as a single author who was using pre-Exilic material but was editing and writing in the age of Babylonian exile, the mid-sixth century BCE. Others suggest that "the Deuteronomist" is a close-knit group of Temple scholars rather than a sole individual. Some[1] suggest that the same source may also have written the account of Jeremiah. Since Noth's work, some scholars attribute two separate stages to the text, a first (referred to as Dtr1) and second (referred to as Dtr2) edition of the text, although most still consider that both editions were the result of the same author.

...According to the narratives of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, in 622/621 BCE, Josiah's high priest Hilkiah found part of the Torah in the Temple, a mainly spartan and empty building. In reaction to the text, King Josiah again centralised the religion, and destroyed places and objects of worship which were neither the Jerusalem Temple nor specified to be housed in it. Since before the 5th century scholars (such as Jerome) have insisted that the text found by Hilkiah was the law code of Deuteronomy. Scholars allege that the text was written at Josiah's instigation and "found" to justify his actions.

According to the documentary hypothesis, the priests of Shiloh wrote the law code to support their views. The code was written to support the king, a centralised religion, Levites generally rather than just Aaronids, and a balance on the king's power (for example by supporting a militia rather than an organised army) due to the way in which kings had previously treated them.

D then created, according to the hypothesis, a history of rulers, judging them by their actions according to the code, culminating in Josiah. D inserted the law code at the start, framed as Moses' last words since D was not trying to change the pre-existing JE account.

There are only about 900 years between the writing of the two texts. Not that the age of the texts changes anything about the horrific, barbaric, genocide-advocating and ancient nature of these texts still approved by living religions today...

Not according to Baruch Spinoza and Richard Simon. Neither according to André Chouraqui. Apparently, Wikipedia isn't all that scientific in the texts it offers its readers.

According to Chouraqui (whom I would trust more than Wikipedia): "The War of the Kings (Gn14) was written in Akkadian (or Canaanean) and translated to Hebrew at a later date; estimated between the 20th and the 16th century BC."

LOL, what a spectacular non-sequitur! Whether you just don't understand your own sources or spin on purpose, this was on par with the work of creationists:

You cite the very two 17th-century scholars who started the text analysis that led to the Documentary Hypothesis (which I quoted from Wikipedia).

You quote Chouraqui regarding a passage in Genesis, whereas the discussion was about passages written by the Deuteronomist.

You apply a sentence about a single chapter of Genesis, plagiarised by a late Bible author, to the entirety of the Old Testament...

You present Chouraqui as an analyst of the origin of the OT, whereas in truth he is a translator who only summarized the research of others in a preface, and even indicated that while he acknowledges the fragmentary origin of the text, he concerns himself with the text itself...

<BLOCLQUOTE>2.You quote Chouraqui regarding a passage in Genesis, whereas the discussion was about passages written by the Deuteronomist.</BLOCLQUOTE&gt

I stand corrected.

<BLOCLQUOTE>3.You apply a sentence about a single chapter of Genesis, plagiarised by a late Bible author, to the entirety of the Old Testament...<BLOCLQUOTE>

LOL. No, I don't.

<BLOCLQUOTE>4.You present Chouraqui as an analyst of the origin of the OT, whereas in truth he is a translator who only summarized the research of others in a preface, and even indicated that while he acknowledges the fragmentary origin of the text, he concerns himself with the text itself...<BLOCLQUOTE>

LOL. I quote Chouraqui as opposed to Wikipedia. If you read the book Entête, you must have also read the "commentary" which relates to the language and substance of the text. Chouraqui goes way into the domain of interpreting.

And dig your own grave doing so. Wikipedia summarizes research on the matter at hand with references, Chouraqui's unreferenced preface from over 60 years ago is not a summary of any research of his own and is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Chouraqui goes way into the domain of interpreting.

Which is irrelevant to the subject of the age of the text, but thanks for playing. It is now completely clear that you are out of your depth on all the subjects touched (the Koran, Egypt, Turkey, the Bible, etc.), and regularly confuse matters (Wahhabis and Iran, Turks and Muslims, Genesis and Deuteronomy and so on) but just can't admit it and learn.

The book was a landmark in Near Eastern Studies and Biblical archaeology, since it challenged the dominant view, popularised by William Foxwell Albright, that the patriarchal narratives of Genesis can be identified on archaeological grounds with the Mesopotamian world of 2nd millennium BC. Van Seters noted that many of Albright's parallels were vague, and fit other regions than Mesopotamia and other times than 2nd millennium. Specially devastating was his analysis of Genesis 14, where he pointed out that the political situation described in Genesis 14 - a Near East dominated by a coalition led by Elam and including Hatti, Assyria and Babylonia - is not confirmed by any monuments, king lists, or other historical and archaeological sources. Van Seters also pointed out that the ten kings mentioned in Genesis 14 cannot be found in any ancient documents outside the Bible.

The book was also a criticism of the school of Tradition history advanced most notably by Hermann Gunkel and Martin Noth: Van Seters "argues that Noth's (1948) idea of a "pentateuchal oral tradition" is flawed both historically (with respect to the history of Israel) and analogically (given Noth's comparisons with the development of Icelandic saga) [and] contends that traces of folkloric structure do not make it inevitable 'that the tradition as a whole, or even [certain] parts of it, derive from a pre-literate period'". [1] Van Seters instead proposed that Genesis was an essentially literary work, but one based on a process of supplementation by successive authors rather on a redactorial process (i.e., on the combination of separate documents by an editor or editors). This in turn amounted to a major challenge to the Documentary Hypothesis, the dominant theory concerning the origins of the Pentateuch.

Now isn't this a much more appropriate (and civilised) way to engage in dialogue? Thank you for this pointer. You are clearly initiated in biblical studies... and as you know, one can spend an entire lifetime studying only Genesis... so there's no need to be arrogant with people who know less than you on a given subject.

So, this is your "proof" that the Christian (and Jewish) God calls for genocide. Tell me, as a Christian or a Jew living in the 1st, 10th or 21st century... who is it that God is calling me to "brutally murder"?

No...
This thread got started when I stated that "the Koran explicitly calls for the elimination of the infidels ad nauseam"... and you responded by stating (first implicitly, then explicitly) that the Bible too calls for Genocide.

Hence my question that you didn't answer: who is the Bible calling on me to "brutally murder"?

... since you mentioned the Wahhabi, let's take a look at their American equivalents: The Reconstructionists. These nice guys believe that God calls for stoning of adulterers, overthrow of democratic government and its replacement with rule by divine right and assorted other funny things.

Oh, and did I mention that some of the more prominent madmen in that sect (Rushdoony [late, unlamented] and Ahmanson [at large] in particular) have their money all over the American Christian Right - from the Teabaggers to the Creationists? Saying that they own the American right is obviously misguided, but they are a comparable influence to - say - Mr. Scaife, and about as malign.

Oh really? Where? Proscribing homosexuality is not the same as calling on His followers to exterminate homosexuals

That's a theological argument that you should be having with your Reconstructionist brothers in the faith, not with me. You wanted to tar all of Islam with the Wahhabi just a couple of posts ago. Well, turnabout is fair play.

Says you. There's plenty of Islamic scholars who are equally insistent that the Wahhabi and their kindred spirits to be theologically misguided. But apparently Islam is responsible for every extremist sect, while Christians are permitted to simply disavow the theology of their bomb-throwers and move on. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to why this is not a case of blatant special pleading?

No. I'll tell you what I have a real problem with. People like you who spew hate against Christians, while systematically turning a blind eye to Muslim extremism - whether it's in Europe or elsewhere. I certainly denounce any and all forms of Christian fundamentalism, but I don't feel threatened by it for two reasons:

First, because the social orders we live in are clearly and unambiguously secular

Second, because when I go to Church (and I've done it all: Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox... European, Russian, American) I don't hear hate coming out of the preacher's mouth. That doesn't mean it never happens - but it's rare.

On the other hand, the separation between the state and Islam is anything but clear in predominantly Muslim states - including Turkey. In fact, it's anything but clear in Muslim dominated communities in Europe. Islam's presence in state affairs results in reduced rights for both non Muslims and Muslims (compared to the rights we have in Europe or the US). Hate speech against Western Civilization, Jews and Christians is common in mosques. Even political leaders such as Erdogan preach against the integration of Muslims into European societies (see his speech in Cologne in 2008 to a group of 20000 Muslims).

But you, for some reason, go out of your way to defend Islam point blank - and refuse to see any threat whatsoever that Islam may pose to the freedoms that we have (and that we should cherish) in Europe. That's what I have a problem with.

The victims of the Belgian - and other - sexual Catholic abuse scandals will be touched by your concern.

So will Tony Blair, whose dedication to the separation of church and state forced him to hide his religious crankiness from the public while it also led him into supporting a psychotic war after 'praying to god for guidance'.

As for 'Islamic fundamentalism' - that didn't actually exist as a viable or influential political movement until the CIA decided it would be a useful stick with which to whack the Soviet pinata until it disgorged those useful oil territories in the 'Stans.

Cue cash and weapons in return for drugs.

And here we are.

Is there anyone here who isn't familiar with Mossadeq's secular but oh-so dangerously left-leaning Iran?

Are you really so ignorant and naive that you don't realise these idiocies aren't fundamentally about religion?

Erdogan preach against the integration of Muslims into European societies (see his speech in Cologne in 2008 to a group of 20000 Muslims)

Do you have a single claim that has anything to do with reality (rather than distortions at hate sites like Jihadwatch)? Erdogan's full speech can be read in German here. He didn't speak about Muslims, he spoke about Turks. And he spoke out against forced assimilation -- in particular, the right to use Turkish as mother language. This passage of contention was in the middle of a longer talk on integration in host countries, complete with learning the local language, going to schools, serving the local economy, and taking part in social life including getting elected in local elections.

The prime minister goes on to address the integration of Turks in Germany. "I understand that you are sensitive about the issue of assimilation," Erdogan says. "No one can demand that from you." Assimilation -- in other words, conforming to German culture -- is a catchword that Turkish immigrants associate with their fear of losing their national identity. Erdogan does not repeat the controversial demand he made to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday, when he called for the founding of Turkish-language educational institutions in Germany. Today, he only says: "It is your natural right to teach your children their mother tongue."

During his long speech, Erdogan plays the integration card as he sees fit. He makes conciliatory noises, but he stops short of making a plea for assimilation. Although much remains vague, at times he takes a pragmatic tone. "Take advantage of Germany's educational institutions," he says. "It's a disadvantage if you don't speak the language of the country." Nevertheless, his speech, in which the phrases "we Turks" and "the Germans" appear again and again, does deliver a clear message: You may live in Germany, but you are Turks -- and I am your prime minister.

The original text in German also quotes Erdogan as adding:

"I understand very well the sensitive point of assimilation. No one can expect you to tolerate assimilation. No one can expect that you submit to assimilation. Because assimilation is a crime against humanity. You should be aware of that."

I really don't understand why you insist on using secondary sources when there is a perfectly fine link to the primary source in a post that I know you've read, because you replied to it.

But here we go again:

I understand the sensitivity you show towards assimilation very well. Nobody can expect you to tolerate assimilation. No one can expect from you that you submit to an assimilation. Because assimilation is a crime against humanity, you should be aware. But we must also take note of the following: you can in today's Germany, in Europe today, in today's world, no longer be regarded as "the Other", as one who is only here temporarily. Consider The Turkish community has spent fully 47 years for this country. Not only in Germany, many European countries is approaching the number of our citizens, almost five million. It is noteworthy that despite this huge operation, despite the numerical strength, certain basic problems in these countries are still not on the agenda. Of course, our children will learn Turkish. This is to share your native language and it is their natural right, your mother your children.

However, if you learn the language of the country where you live, or even a few more languages, you would benefit from it in every way. Look, many of our children here learning at an early age no foreign languages. These children are confronted with German only when they start school. And that means that these children have in comparison to the other students the school career with a handicap of one who begins from scratch. But it would be for you and your children in any way be beneficial if you exploit the opportunities offered by the local school system.

In the Germanic language group, there is a distinction between integration - conforming to the laws and etiquette of society - and assimilation - wholesale replacement of language, mannerisms, cuisine and so on. The line is somewhat fuzzy, and on many individual issues reasonable people can disagree on what is a matter of personal taste and what is a breach of etiquette.

I personally find that framing somewhat contrived, but that's the context he speaks into.

This assimilation-integration thing must be embedded in a Germany context. The fall-back position of German conservatives after the abandonment of the guest worker fantasy was that immigrants indeed have to choose between identities: be a German, or be a Turk. In their view, there is no such thing as having both; someone claiming a German identity while not ready to let loose of the Turkish one is a 100% Turk in disguise to get the benefits of German citizenship. Or, at least, that's the ideology behind their categorical rejection of double citizenship a few years earlier, and later expressed views on education and 'leading culture' followed from that. This is what Erdogan reacted to.

Hate? That's an interesting claim. Perchance you'd want to quote me on some of that?

I certainly denounce any and all forms of Christian fundamentalism,

So you denounce and reject the Vatican's meddling in the electoral politics of Ireland, Spain and Poland? Or do they not qualify as "fundamentalist?"

but I don't feel threatened by it for two reasons:
First, because the social orders we live in are clearly and unambiguously secular

Of course it is. Just as clearly and unambiguously secular as Turkey or Egypt.

Second, because when I go to Church (and I've done it all: Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox... European, Russian, American) I don't hear hate coming out of the preacher's mouth. That doesn't mean it never happens - but it's rare.

And I suppose that you have also been to mosques and heard Islamic sermons? Or are you basing your double standard purely on your greater familiarity with Christian liturgy?

On the other hand, the separation between the state and Islam is anything but clear in predominantly Muslim states - including Turkey.

[Citation needed]

In fact, it's anything but clear in Muslim dominated communities in Europe.

As opposed to those Catholic dominated communities where secular law is held in the highest possible regard, and priests are remanded into the custody of secular authorities at the first suspicion of criminality?

Islam's presence in state affairs results in reduced rights for both non Muslims and Muslims (compared to the rights we have in Europe or the US).

Yes. The meddling of religious groups in the affairs of secular civilisation usually results in reduced liberty for the citizens. This, however, is common to all religious groups, and the EU has thus far been able to deal with even the aggressive religious imperialism of the Vatican. In terms of funding, organisation and access to influential political operatives, the political Islam lobby is light-years behind the Vatican, so it is not easy to believe that it will be an insurmountable problem.

Hate speech against Western Civilization, Jews and Christians is common in mosques.

[Citation needed]

Even political leaders such as Erdogan preach against the integration of Muslims into European societies (see his speech in Cologne in 2008 to a group of 20000 Muslims).

I don't know where you get your information, but I would suggest allowing your subscription to lapse. Because you are severely misinformed. Die Welt has the speech to which you refer. This is the pertinent couple of paragraphs, courtesy of GoogleTranslate:

I understand the sensitivity you show towards assimilation very well. Nobody can expect you to tolerate assimilation. No one can expect from you that you submit to an assimilation. Because assimilation is a crime against humanity, you should be aware. But we must also take note of the following: you can in today's Germany, in Europe today, in today's world, no longer be regarded as "the Other", as one who is only here temporarily. Consider The Turkish community has spent fully 47 years for this country. Not only in Germany, many European countries is approaching the number of our citizens, almost five million. It is noteworthy that despite this huge operation, despite the numerical strength, certain basic problems in these countries are still not on the agenda. Of course, our children will learn Turkish. This is to share your native language and it is their natural right, your mother your children.

However, if you learn the language of the country where you live, or even a few more languages, you would benefit from it in every way. Look, many of our children here learning at an early age no foreign languages. These children are confronted with German only when they start school. And that means that these children have in comparison to the other students the school career with a handicap of one who begins from scratch. But it would be for you and your children in any way be beneficial if you exploit the opportunities offered by the local school system.

I'm not sure what, precisely, you find objectionable here?

But you, for some reason, go out of your way to defend Islam point blank

Eh, no. Better luck next time.

You entered into a discussion on the viability of the integration of North Africa with the European Union with a series of claims based on the presumption that most of North Africa is populated by extremist regimes pandering to a barbaric culture of hateful fundamentalists. This is simply not the case. You further insinuated that the New York Cordoba House project had Iranian and/or Saudi funding, despite the fact that anybody with ten minutes to look them up on Google and even a superficial understanding of the political picture in the Middle East will realise the staggering, monumental improbability of this proposition. And you trotted out the oft-debunked Ahmedinejad speech gambit. Then you tried to insinuate that Erdogan has been fomenting a Muslim fifth column to resist integration into European society. When in fact he explicitly advocated integration into European society.

Have you considered that perhaps what you construe as apologetics for Islamic fundamentalism is merely an attempt to disabuse you of silly, factually inaccurate and paranoid propaganda?

And I suppose that you have also been to mosques and heard Islamic sermons?

In fact, I would have been interested in witnessing prayer in a Mosque. But, last time I was in Morocco, I was forbidden to go into a Mosque because I was obviously not Muslim. So much for tolerance.

You need a citation for hate speach? You yourself agreed that it was a good idea for the French state to finance Mosque building so that it could impose hand picked Imams and do away with calls to Jihad. But now, you need a citation. A short memory won't get you far.

Even in Syria, the government has recently started installing cameras in the country's mosques so as to monitor extremist groups (BBC source - last week).

No, I need a citation for hate speech being more common in mosques than in churches. Which is a stronger claim than the simple occurrence of hate speech.

You yourself agreed that it was a good idea for the French state to finance Mosque building so that it could impose hand picked Imams and do away with calls to Jihad.

Well, no. I agreed that it would be a good idea for the French state to finance mosque building so that it could impose hand picked imams and do away with calls for political activism and reactionary bullshit from the pulpit. Political activism and reactionary bullshit are somewhat broader categories than calls for jihad. Although calls for jihad are, of course, a subset of political activism and reactionary bullshit.

Even in Syria, the government has recently started installing cameras in the country's mosques so as to monitor extremist groups (BBC source - last week).

"Even" Syria installed cameras in mosques? Last time I checked, Syria was a military dictatorship. I didn't realise that it was unexpected for military dictatorships to bug religious gatherings...

And when was the last time YOU participated in Mosque prayers?

That would be precisely as much your business as when I last attended a Christian church: None whatsoever. I am not the one peddling anecdotes pertaining to the relative abundance of gore in the liturgy of Islam as compared to Christianity.

Let me tell you about propaganda. My (pretty, young) nice finished medical school last year and landed a job in Molenbeek. Was so harassed (jeered, stared down at and otherwise bullied) by the local community that she ended up wearing a hidjab - just to be left alone. Couldn't handle it anymore after 6 months. Resigned and is looking for a job elsewhere. But of course, this is just propaganda, isn't it? It's just so politically correct to shut up and smile.

What has that to do with any of your blatantly false claims about Iran, Ahmedinejad, the 'Ground Zero Mosque', the Koran, Egypt, Turkey, Erdogan, and so on in this thread? And based on your record of gross distortions in this thread, we should believe that this anecdote is a precise account of events and is evidence for anything because?...

All the Abrahamic religions have an atrocious attitude towards women. And certainly misogyny and homophobia is more blatant (and probably more widespread) in the Arabic cultural sphere.

And if you had made the case from the outset that North Africa had a severe problem with gender equality, democratic accountability and human rights in general, nobody would have gainsaid that. Those are concerns that the EU tackled poorly in the Eastwards expansion. It's perfectly reasonable to demand safeguards against repeating the Polish mistake of granting admission to a country whose political culture is severely lacking.

But that is not what you were arguing. You were arguing that there is an essential character flaw in Islam that is not present in Christianity and which makes North Africa impossible to integrate into the EU. Not just today, or tomorrow or this decade or while they adapt their legal and political systems to European norms. But permanently and insurmountably. And that's the core of my disagreement with you: I do not see a difference in kind between Russia, Egypt and Poland - only a difference in degree.

Of course, it does not help your credibility that you elected to repeatedly bring utter garbage to the table, in the form of baseless slanders against Erdogan, paranoid and delusional insinuations against the Cordoba House, long-debunked urban legends about Ahmadinejad and flat untruths about Egypt.

I do not and did not defend Ahmadinejad. I disabused you of a couple of urban legends and exaggerations about him. There are plenty of valid criticisms of both him and the Iranian government. But you're not presenting any of them, because you insist on couching the discussion in terms of the abiding malice of Islam, rather than the specific, tangible political conflicts that occasion objectionable behaviour.

That being said, the only really damning quotes you've linked to are a few from late 2005 and early '06 in support of holocaust denial. These have a very specific origin as a response to the cartoon jihad. And while using holocaust denial to make a cheap (and misguided) political point about European hypocrisy vis-a-vis freedom of speech is outrageous, it is somewhat less outrageous than holocaust denial just for the sake of it.

Oh, and it seems like he's a 9/11 troofer. Which is of course ridiculous, but fairly harmless.

No, Mr. Sierra, I can't accept. It would appear that the one who is lying again is you.

Just a couple of comments above, you wrote:

Actually, Ahmedinejad has never called for the destruction of Israel, as anybody who follows Middle East politics even casually knows perfectly well. Unless, of course, they're relying on the American propaganda press for their information.
- Jake

Ahmedinejad explicitly called for Israel's destruction in 2005, and this call has been relayed by the international press - not just the American press.

Im sure we've covered on more than one occasion that this was originally from a mistranslation, taken out of context. The fact that reporters translate from english to their native languages rathet than arabic is hardly surprising in the current economic climate in the media world.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

You insist on repeating this urban legend as if it were true. It's not. Note that Juan Cole, unlike Wolf Blitzer, actually understands Farsi...

Here's a Belgian link of one of his speeches in February 2010 where he says that "Israel has no reason to exist".

Did the DDR have any reason to exist? More to the point, would it be honest to construe a call for the DDR to cease to exist (in, say, 1987) as a call for the extermination of a third of the German people?

The second word of the first sentence of the Moroccan Constitution is ISLAMIC.
An Islamic and fully sovereign state whose official language is Arabic, the Kingdom of Morocco constitutes a part of the Great Arab Maghreb.
Maybe you would like to give us an interpretation of that?

In December 2007, the Moroccan court of justice sentenced six men to jail terms of between two and ten months for the crime of homosexuality. In Morocco as in most Muslim countries, homosexuality is technically a crime. Morocco isn't like Egypt where the police actively hunt gay men by luring them with internet ads and arresting them when they turn up for a meeting. Imams and other religious figures likely insisted that the men in the video be punished to remind Moroccans not to get too cocky in flouting the religious stipulations which form a large part of Moroccan law. Legally, Morocco is a conservative Muslim country with a penal code rooted in Sharia law.

A red herring. Supporting human rights for one group does not excuse hate speech against another group. Supporting human rights is the default position that should be expected of all conduct. The fact that the Catholic Church wants to advertise its commitment to the human rights of the Roma while spreading malicious hate and inciting violence against homosexuals and doctors who provide reproductive care does not make it virtuous. It makes it hypocritical.

As a matter of fact I know of the Rat Lines. It was one of the darker and more shameful periods of the Catholic Church. That said, what happened should be analysed in context: many of those who were saved through the Rat Lines deserved to face justice. But many others, who were innocent, would have been slaughtered by Stalin's Communists or Tito's Partisans, simply because they were Catholic and regardless of their actual roles during the War.

Whether you'd call Erdogan a hard-liner is a matter of judgement, I suppose. Personally, I don't think he has much of his original ideology left at this point - few politicians of his seniority have. But whatever the case, there are light-years between Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood.